Two court decisions affirm gun restrictions

Two recent court decisions have affirmed the state’s ability to restrict and control guns without infringing on the second amendment.

The fee to register a handgun in New York State usually varies between three and ten dollars. However New York State Penal Law § 400.00 allows the City of New York and Nassau County on Long Island to demand a different fee. The legal challenges to this statutory provision claimed that this fee violated equal protection under the law. The challengers had also argued that the fee set by New York City violated the Second Amendment. In its opinion in Kwong v. Bloomberg, a unanimous Second Circuit panel upheld both the state statute and the city regulation, affirming the district judge.

On July 9, 2013 the Second Circuit Court (Kwong v. Bloomberg) rejected the argument that the $340 fee set by NYC Admin. Code places too great a burden on Second Amendment rights. The court held that “undisputed evidence” illustrated that “the $340 licensing fee is designed to defray (and does not exceed) the administrative costs associated with the licensing scheme.” This decision is my like those of other NY judges. The Second Circuit’s decision was that the Supreme Court’s First Amendment fee provides the appropriate foundation for analyzing the constitutionality of fees under the Second Amendment.

The court’s decision stated that the fact that the license is more expensive does not make it a “substantial burden” on Second Amendment rights. The opinion interestingly cites Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 874 (1992): “The fact that a law which serves a valid purpose, one not designed to strike at the right itself, has the incidental effect of making it more difficult or more expensive to [exercise the right] cannot be enough to invalidate it.”

The equal protection claim against the state statute allowing differential fees also failed. The court ruled that a “fundamental right” had not been “burdened” and that “geographic classifications are not suspect.” Applying a rational and historical basis, the court was easily satisfied in denying the injunction.

This decision follows the court’s decision in November 2012 denying an injunction barring New York State handgun licensing officials from requiring “proper cause” from applicants prior to obtaining the necessary license to carry handguns for self-defense. This is pursuant to New York Penal Law section 400.00. The plaintiffs (ALAN KACHALSKY et. al, v. Westchester County) argued that application of section 400.00 violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. Because the requirement for “proper cause” is substantially related to “New York’s compelling interests in public safety and crime prevention” the court denied the injunction.

In so doing the court stated:

“Proper respect for a coordinate branch of government’ requires that we strike down [legislation] only if ‘the lack of constitutional authority to pass [the] act in question is clearly demonstrated.’ (Quoting United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629, 635 (1883)). Our review of the history and tradition of firearm regulation does not “clearly demonstrate” that limiting handgun possession in public to those who show a special need for self-protection is inconsistent with the Second Amendment.”

The court used the extensive history of gun control in both NY State and in the country as a whole, all the way back to the Founding Fathers, as a main basis to reject the injunctions against these gun laws. With that as a basis it is hard to see where those who favor ultra liberal gun laws or no gun laws at will ever find much satisfaction in court.